Help! How is the imperfect subjunctive being used in this sentence?

[Pepo]

Greetings scholars, I'm making my way through De Natura Deorum. (It's a bit of a slog so far, not exactly what I was hoping for; maybe I'll find it more interesting as it goes along....)

Anyway, I stopped to consider how the subjunctive was being employed in the following sentence (Book I, section 40)and realized I'm not sure!

"idemque disputat aethera esse eum quem homines Iovem appellarent, quique aer per maria manaret eum esse Neptunum, terramque eam esse quae Ceres diceretur, similique ratione persequitur vocabula reliquorum deorum."

I was thrown by the occurrence of the imperfect subjunctive after the present indicative of the main verb, "disputat."

Does the imperfect subj here indicate relative clause of characteristic, indirect question, conditional statement -- ?

When I translated, I wrote "And this same [scholar] argues that the sky is he whom men called Jupiter..." but the reference translation has the present tense: "whom men call Jupiter."

Brain freeze! Can anyone help with the grammar here?

Many thanks as always.

[Johannes Patruus]

Gildersleeve quotes this sentence as an example of a secondary tense
dependent on an "historical" present. See the paragraph bridging pages 316
& 317 -
books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qk7foW63cO0C&pg=PA316

Patruus

[Johannes Patruus]

Corrected link -
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qk7foW63cO0C&pg=PA316

Patruus

[Evertjan.]

Pepo wrote on 06 jul 2013 in alt.language.latin:

> "Idemque disputat aethera esse eum, quem homines Iovem appellarent,
> quique aer per maria manaret, eum esse Neptunum, terramque eam esse,
> quae Ceres diceretur,"

[..]

> "And this same [scholar] argues that the
> sky is he whom men called Jupiter..." but the reference translation
> has the present tense: "whom men call Jupiter."

I submit that your translation is more correct.

I would use: "used to call" or perhaps even "might call".

"And the same person debates that aether is, what men might call Zeus"

I don't know what you mean with "reference translation", methinks there
are just translations, unless Cicero has included translation and has
authorized the same. Quod in probabilitate extremo non'st.

<http://www.trigofacile.com/jardins/lucullus/latin/ciceron/natura-
deorum2a.htm> translates:

"Il soutient que le dieu que les hommes appellent Jupiter est l'Éther, et
que Neptune est l'air qui se répand sur la mer, et que la déesse appelée
Cérès est la terre"

eum > le dieu
appellarent > appellent
manaret > est
diceretur > est

so also this French translator does not honour the obvious conjunctivus
imperfectus, and unnecessarily takes al lot of translational freedom,
but in the end the meaning seems reasonably correct.

Sic fortasse transit libertas translatorum.


--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Ed Cryer]

[40] idemque disputat aethera esse eum quem homines Iovem appellarent,

quique aer per maria manaret eum esse Neptunum, terramque eam esse quae
Ceres diceretur, similique ratione persequitur vocabula reliquorum

deorum. idemque etiam legis perpetuae et aeternae vim, quae quasi dux
vitae et magistra officiorum sit, Iovem dicit esse, eandemque fatalem
necessitatem appellat sempiternam rerum futurarum veritatem; quorum
nihil tale est ut in eo vis divina inesse videatur.

I've seen this before in Cicero. I recall how I explained it to myself
at the time, but I've never had my reasoning approved. But for what it's
worth, here goes.

It's particularly strange when you consider how he uses the present
subjunctive in the next sentence; "sit". But he uses the imperfect so
consistently that you have to conclude that it carried some positive
meaning for him.
In English we could say "he says that what men would call Jove is simply
air". That "would" is imperfect subjunctive. In Latin you'd get a
construction like "si eum rogaris quid sit aether, tum diceret ...". And
that's what I think Cicero has in mind when he writes that sentence.
What to call it? How about "indirect apodosis"?

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Slight correction to my Latin.
"si eum rogarEs".

Ed

[Pepo]

Thanks to all for your help! It's gratifying to learn that I am not the first one to be tripped up by this particular stretch of prose!

(By "reference translation" I meant the translation I'm using to compare and correct my own: it's by Thomas Francklin, D.D., 1829, free via Google Books.)

I think I'll continue with Book 1 to the end, and then maybe switch to something else. (Thus far, it's just been a long catalogue of philosophers' ideas, rather tiresome and dismissive, it seems to me.)

Before this, I read "Pro Archia" which seemed much more lively. Perhaps I'd better stick with Cicero the Advocate for a while.

Best wishes!

[Ed Cryer]

Pepo wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for your help! It's gratifying to learn that I am not
> the first one to be tripped up by this particular stretch of prose!
>
> (By "reference translation" I meant the translation I'm using to
> compare and correct my own: it's by Thomas Francklin, D.D., 1829,
> free via Google Books.)
>
> I think I'll continue with Book 1 to the end, and then maybe switch
> to something else. (Thus far, it's just been a long catalogue of
> philosophers' ideas, rather tiresome and dismissive, it seems to
> me.)
>
> Before this, I read "Pro Archia" which seemed much more lively.
> Perhaps I'd better stick with Cicero the Advocate for a while.
>
> Best wishes!
>
>
>

Cicero's philosophy isn't really what the Greeks would have called
"philosophy". It's just too damn practical; ignoring all the
hair-splitting. I don't think he would have felt at home in Plato's
Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum. I doubt he would have been at home even
in Epicurus' commune.
No, the Romans weren't philosophers; far too pragmatic.

That's why my interpretation of the imperfect subjunctive given above
holds water. Consider these two alternative statements; 1. Men say that
the air is Jove; and 2. Men would say that the air is Jove. Cicero
probably knew that the average Roman in the streets never said anything
of the sort; because the philosophical thought never crossed their
minds. But maybe if you dragged them into a lecture hall with the
promise of free wine added to their state-provided "panem et circences",
then you might force them into a consideration of the question.

The hypothetical man-in-the-Roman-streets, presented with the hypothesis
that there be natural explanations for all supposed divine phenomena,
"Well, Marcus Tullius, I've always held that behind every god there's a
set of laws of nature".
Which might have been a preferable wish for Cicero; better than "Hey,
come again; and pour me another jug".

Ed

P.S. Try something of Cicero's best rhetoric; maybe the first
Catilinarian speech. There's fire and passion in that.